Keydata boss: I have been a victim of injustice

1. I do not and cannot support the ruling of the Upper Tribunal.

I cannot agree with and do not accept the Decision of the Upper Tribunal, which was published yesterday afternoon in the matter of Stewart Owen Ford and Mark John Owen v The Financial Conduct Authority: [2018] UKUT 0358 (TCC) – Gov. UK.

I am equally disappointed with the Upper Tribunal as I am with its ruling.

2. I have experienced a serious injustice.

My integrity and competence have been questioned, as well as my good name and honor. I want those who truly know me to understand that I am aware of the Upper Tribunal’s decision and its implications for my reputation. I strongly believe that I have been unfairly treated and that I have not violated any laws or acted against my conscience.

The Decision of the Upper Tribunal requires me to promptly address the confidence previously entrusted to me by Keydata investors on a significantly broader scale.

3. “Not the honesty of a person in general.”

The fact that the Upper Tribunal has accurately reiterated the Law in Paragraph 16 of their Decision provides minimal consolation.

The execution of the regulated tasks within the governing setting, the fulfillment of those specific tasks within that specific domain, but the moral uprightness in that specific domain of the fulfillment of those specific tasks is not the matter under consideration. The behavior of that individual in the execution of the regulated tasks may raise doubts about their integrity, even if they are perceived to have unquestionable integrity in other aspects of their life.

A determination of absence of honesty can be made without an individual having been deceitful, as acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal.

4. Not “Deception”.

It is also comforting to note that in Paragraph 521 of their Decision, the Upper Tribunal mentions that:.

“… It has never been the Authority’s argument that Mr Ford or Mr Owen were involved in deceit …”.

Once again, in Paragraph 523, the Upper Tribunal declares in their Decision that:

“Others were taking actions without giving any notice to Mr. Ford or anyone else at Keydata, as evident from the evidence before us …”

5. A “challenging and demanding childhood”.

Perhaps, in the context of the belief that an entrepreneur with my particular background is unsuitable for leadership in the financial industry in the UK, the pathos or emotional appeal arose due to my challenging early personal circumstances. I am uncertain about the reading of the early Decision from the Upper Tribunal, but it mentions that I was born into a working-class background in Scotland and had a challenging and difficult upbringing.

“The status of Mr Ford was a subject of some disagreement.”

I believe that I will remain as the Chief Executive Officer of Keydata and I resigned in April 2007, as stated in Paragraph 7, Sub-paragraph 3 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision.

“His position at Keydata was fundamentally altered from the day Mr. Ford became involved in the management, with a focus on respecting the state of mind.”

As mentioned in Paragraph 81 of the Upper Tribunal’s ruling:.

“Keydata disbursed investment commodities for global product distribution in order to foster…Solely in the capacity of Non-Executive Chairman, Mr Ford continued to be engaged with the organization and relinquished his position as CEO of Keydata starting in April 2007…That is the scenario for him.”

As mentioned in Paragraph 86 of the Decision by the Upper Tribunal:.

“…He simply carried out the same role as the executive CEO at Keydata, denying the effect that he was able to access the international distribution projects and develop international projects. Mr. Ford had become a resident in Switzerland, focusing on international matters, and resigned as the CEO of Keydata at that time…”

In Paragraph 88, the Upper Tribunal acknowledges:.

In April 2007, Mr. Ford, who played a substantial role in the UK, was involved in other strategic activities outside the country. We acknowledge that he spent less time on the day-to-day operations of Keydata.

In Paragraph 259, the Upper Tribunal cannot agree with the submission of the [Financial Conduct] Authority:

Looking back, the concept of “global arranger” is not something the Authority’s submission can approve. Upon reviewing the evidence, we find it clear that Mr. Ford indeed worked towards expanding the Lifemark offering on a global scale. He was hired by Orietex and LAS Global as a consultant to fulfill their duties to Lifemark.

7. Keydata’s SLS and Lifemark Products – “We acknowledge that he is a troubleshooter”.

I agree with the Upper Tribunal’s decision on Paragraph 298. I assert that I, as an investor, have made substantial contributions to the protection of interests in the money of Keydata.

Mr. Ford’s perspective of himself in this manner was not just a mere fabrication, but rather an authentic one. We acknowledge that he is indeed a skilled troubleshooter.

In Paragraph 371 of their Decision, the Upper Tribunal acknowledges:

In order to rectify the situation, Mr. Ford intended to figure out what he could do to salvage himself from default. Additionally, he hoped that by procuring the redemption of the SLS bonds held by Keydata investors, Mr. Elias Ford expected that we would accept his proposal.

In Paragraph 409 of their Decision, the Upper Tribunal acknowledges:

Mr Ford held a positive perspective on the attainability of the Lifemark rates of return, the Lifemark risk parameters, and the Lifemark costs, which we acknowledge. It is understandable that others in Keydata, especially Mr Owen, shared that same viewpoint.

Once again, in Paragraph 448 of their Decision, the Upper Tribunal acknowledges:.

Keydata’s intention to fulfill its obligations to bondholders by making payments on time, even though it did not receive income payments from SLS, is acknowledged. We acknowledge that this might have been driven by a sincere desire to avoid inconveniencing Keydata investors.

8. Keydata had been a prosperous company before the involvement of the Financial Services Authority.

It was and will continue to be my stance, as mentioned in Paragraph 77 of the Decision of the Upper Tribunal, that:.

Keydata was a successful company that was highly regarded as a leading distributor in the IFA community, known for its product growth and income. It had won a significant number of industry awards and employed a substantial staff of around 140 individuals.

The review of Keydata’s Controls and Systems conducted by Thornton Grant on January 29, 2009, cited the wrongful intervention of the Financial Conduct Authority only six months prior to the Upper Tribunal’s Decision and States.

“… The company showed us a strong dedication to develop and uphold a sufficient framework of systems and regulations.

We discovered that in order to operate them, the company possesses a staff with suitable expertise and experience, and its systems and controls are suitable for the size and nature of its business in most aspects.

9. This is and will continue to be my core conviction.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision yesterday did not deliver justice. I firmly maintain that all responsibilities towards Keydata investors had been fulfilled completely and promptly, and that all of Keydata’s Lifemark Products had performed as predicted before the unwarranted involvement of the Financial Services Authority in June 2009. The Lifemark portfolio did not carry any risks, and I still firmly believe, regardless of the Upper Tribunal’s decision yesterday, that Keydata, its investors, and I were all targets of an extremely sophisticated fraud concerning the SLS products, as proven by legal proceedings in this and other countries.